• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      For all of the base-load talk, this is the real reason people are pushing nuclear.

      The projects always go over budget. They always go way over time, too. Both of these things are good for the banks who loan out the billions to build new plants. And they know that if the company goes bankrupt the government will subsidize it.

      Nuclear is just not economical enough to be part of a sustainable energy system.

      • Lysol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        During the time when Sweden built the current nuclear reactors, some where built in just a few years. Sweden had experienced people back then that knew how to build them. We don’t have that anymore. Pretty much no one has.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We also had less examples of issues we need to be prepared for.

          One thing people always get wrong is that they assume Fukushima wasn’t build to withstand tsunamis and how stupid that supposedly was. But it was built to withstand tsunamis. Up to 9 meters of height, which was 50% more than the largest one they had on record. And it’s not like they had other projects to look for to figure out that a 50% margin of safety was too little for this. Turns out, it was. So now, you want to build at least 100% margin of error in tsunami areas, something you couldn’t have known before.

          And that’s just one example from one rather specific type of engineering during a construction process that isn’t even specific to nuclear power. And as accidents happen (see for example Admiral Cloudberg’s excellent air crash investigation series!) we figure out more and more things we need to engineer against to prevent this in the future. As a result, what we build nowadays is orders of magnitude safer than what we did in the past. But it also means that building it has become a huge obstacle, if for no other reason than the sheer number of things you need to be aware of, abide by and track during construction and planning.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fukushima was not a failure of engineering or proper safety measures with construction. It failed because they were old plants that hadn’t been maintained properly and were in disrepair.

            So no, the margin of safety was not too little. The “lesson” learned from the Fukushima Daichi reactor flooding was about proper maintenance and funding.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s the fundamental problem with nuclear energy. Where there are corners, they will be cut.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear is just not economical enough to be part of a sustainable energy system.

        It’s chicken and egg. We have no experience building nuclear on budget because nuclear is too expensive.

      • SamB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah well… Nuclear is too expensive and now I heard another rethoric on how renewables are not making enough profit to be worth it for the big companies. We’re going in circles before these people admit that coal and gas won’t be replaced by anything.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But miraculously that isn’t the case of renewable? Let me lough.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          In the last ten years solar power has gone down in price by 80% and is now producing more power than nuclear.

          Plus when you buy a solar panel it starts making money immediately, unlike a reactor that doesn’t make money for 10-20 years after it starts up.